__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

I 100% endorse this! You should pass this idea along to the Geno Smith thread.

The issue isn't taking a QB in the 2nd. It's what the **** you take in the 1st.

OT and passrusher have been proven dozens of times to be not worth the #1 overall pick this year for the Chiefs. That's how empty-setted the "DRAFT VALYOO!!!111" argument is. It can get turned on its head any which way.

Geno Smith + Xavier Rhodes/a stud from the first who falls?

Or Damontre Moore and Tyler ****ing Bray?

You kidding me? Is that even an option?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16

I would read an entire blog of SNR breaking down athletes' musical capabilities like draft scouting reports.

Yeah, but even with Milliner being a really solid prospect, is he that much better than Rhodes or some of the other Cb's who might be there in the second round?

I'm sure someone will fire with a "same thing with QB's" across my bow, but its not.

That's one of the issues this year. Any comment that can be made about QB can be made about any other position, and vice versa.

Which is why, speaking for myself, I'm so strongly on the idea of drafting QB. Because when player value is equal (and I believe it basically is for all of the top 10 this year - no one has so far separated himself as a or the dominant player) you have to weigh position, and QB is far and away the highest positional value, both in general terms and specific to need here to Kansas City. So if you have, say, Joeckel, Star, Moore, Werner, Fisher, Milliner, and Geno Smith all on the same relative talent tier, Geno Smith leap-frogs them all because of positional value.

Or, since we're in the Tyler Wilson thread, swap Geno's name out for him if that's how your board lays. Same idea, different name.

(And we're likely talking a 2nd quarterback going somewhere in the teens in this draft, if not the top 10; I think people expecting to find Wilson or Barkley at 34 are dreaming).

The issue isn't taking a QB in the 2nd. It's what the **** you take in the 1st.

OT and passrusher have been proven dozens of times to be not worth the #1 overall pick this year for the Chiefs. That's how empty-setted the "DRAFT VALYOO!!!111" argument is. It can get turned on its head any which way.

That's one of the issues this year. Any comment that can be made about QB can be made about any other position, and vice versa.

Which is why, speaking for myself, I'm so strongly on the idea of drafting QB. Because when player value is equal (and I believe it basically is for all of the top 10 this year - no one has so far separated himself as a or the dominant player) you have to weigh position, and QB is far and away the highest positional value, both in general terms and specific to need here to Kansas City. So if you have, say, Joeckel, Star, Moore, Werner, Fisher, Milliner, and Geno Smith all on the same relative talent tier, Geno Smith leap-frogs them all because of positional value.

Or, since we're in the Tyler Wilson thread, swap Geno's name out for him if that's how your board lays. Same idea, different name.

(And we're likely talking a 2nd quarterback going somewhere in the teens in this draft, if not the top 10; I think people expecting to find Wilson or Barkley at 34 are dreaming).

That's one of the issues this year. Any comment that can be made about QB can be made about any other position, and vice versa.

Which is why, speaking for myself, I'm so strongly on the idea of drafting QB. Because when player value is equal (and I believe it basically is for all of the top 10 this year - no one has so far separated himself as a or the dominant player) you have to weigh position, and QB is far and away the highest positional value, both in general terms and specific to need here to Kansas City. So if you have, say, Joeckel, Star, Moore, Werner, Fisher, Milliner, and Geno Smith all on the same relative talent tier, Geno Smith leap-frogs them all because of positional value.

Or, since we're in the Tyler Wilson thread, swap Geno's name out for him if that's how your board lays. Same idea, different name.

(And we're likely talking a 2nd quarterback going somewhere in the teens in this draft, if not the top 10; I think people expecting to find Wilson or Barkley at 34 are dreaming).

I admit that there have been some really impressive 2nd/3rd round QB prospects the last couple of years (Dalton, Kaepernick, Wilson) who looked like better prospects than a lot of first round QB's (Weeden, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder), but there are no good QB prospects like those guys in this draft.

If we want a QB, you take at 1 even if it is a reach. I don't give a flying **** if analysts say we "reached" for a QB or not. It's the most important position in all of sports. That's the one position where it is okay to reach IMO.

__________________Clay's take on Patrick Mahomes

"Geno taught me something, and that's not to get too high on guys like Mahomes."

I admit that there have been some really impressive 2nd/3rd round QB prospects the last couple of years (Dalton, Kaepernick, Wilson) who looked like better prospects than a lot of first round QB's (Weeden, Locker, Gabbert, Ponder), but there are no good QB prospects like those guys in this draft.

If we want a QB, you take at 1 even if it is a reach. I don't give a flying **** if analysts say we "reached" for a QB or not. It's the most important position in all of sports. That's the one position where it is okay to reach IMO.